Friday, August 24, 2012

Gazette Mis-states Outside Counsel Special Education Fees

No wonder taxpayers in Montgomery County don't see the urgency in reining in MCPS's out-of-control, scorched-earth special education litigators. For those unfamiliar with MCPS's practice, MCPS hires pricey private law firms to litigate special education disputes against families of disabled children. Finally, the Board of Education has begun to take a small interest in this cascade of dollars flowing to a few outside attorneys. At yesterday's BOE meeting, the topic of special education legal expenses was discussed before voting to approve four contracts to provide these services.

Unfortunately, the Gazette's reporting on the topic was not entirely accurate. The Gazette reported: "The school system spends about $300,000 annually to pay for the outside defense attorney fees for these cases, said Christina A. Richardson, associate superintendent of special education and student services for the school system."

Not Exactly.

Take a look at the totals for just one outside lawyer alone for the last several years. Payments to Jeffrey Krew, LLC
FY 2004 $ 489,526
FY 2005 $ 470,398
FY 2006 $ 706,921
FY 2007 $ 566,230
FY 2008 $ 629,041
FY 2009 $ 392,770
FY 2010 $ 632,041
FY 2011 $ 359,018
FY 2012 $ 339,853
And FY 2012 is not even over yet! From a high of $706K to a low of $359K over the last 8 fiscal years, that hardly represents "about $300K annually."

When contacted, the Gazette reporter said she only wanted to say what the outside counsel fees are currently, not in the past. Well: currently they are over $300K. And the fiscal year isn't over yet. So, if you are really interested in how much MCPS is paying boutique law firms to fight families of disabled children, go straight to the source: the Board of Education legal fees reports HERE and HERE.

8 comments:

  1. Well, if one looks at the figures, Krew, one of 4 contractors, earned on the average approximately $509,533.11 over 8 or 9 fiscal years. One would have to ask what is the cost of an in house attorney to handle the same cases. If an inside attorney earns $125,000 a year plus benefits, there remains quite a saving for a small caseload. Sounds like a nice in house position to me and a waste of tax payers monies for outside contractors. As a concerned citizen, am I looking at this situation correctly?? The bottom line is that we have expensive outside attorneys abusing families, who are advocating for special ed services for their children. Where is Robin Hood when he is needed? The Sheriff of Nottingham and all of the deception is at it again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Each child presents a very unique situation to the County school system.  However, it seems that MCPS will go to any length not to place a child in a special education environment instead of inclusion in a general education setting.  I wonder if they are willing to accept responsibility for health issues that can arise when a child is entirely mainstreamed with other students (i.e. medical, legal, etc.)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. In Maryland, parents of special needs children face multiple challenges when the School System does not agree with what the parents feel is required for an appropriate education. A recent Supreme Court decision placed the burden on the parents to prove that the School System is not offering an appropriate education with educational benefits. To correct this situation, some states have passed legislation placing the burden back on the school system. In that light, recently the Montgomery County Council of PTAs approved a resolution supporting that change. However, a bill would have to be approved in the next General Assembly Session for the correction to occur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually the US Supreme Court Case of Schafer v. Weast put the burden on the moving party. That means, that if the parents are the moving party, the burden is on them. But, if the school system is the moving party the burden is on them.

      Montgomery County Public Schools could avoid lots of litigation if they did a cost-benefit analysis of litigation. But, they don't. They send families off to fight a law firm with an open check book. A law firm that does NOT get paid unless a case goes to a hearing. The incentive for the law firm is to fight parents at all cost and never settle. No legislation can fix the abusive MINDSET of the MCPS Board of Education.

      Delete
    2. Parents "could" vote the Board of Education members up for re-election out of office. But, they won't. Teachers will tell parents to vote for the Apple Ballot. The Apple Ballot endorses the current BOE members.

      Parents will vote for the teachers' choice because they "think" that the teachers want what's best for students.

      And so it goes. The abusive MINDSET of the MCPS Board of Education will continue.

      Delete
  4. To find out what the current BOE candidates think about these practices, please attend the Montgomery County Civic Federation's Board of Education Candidates' Forum, on Wed, Oct 17th, at 7pm, in the Rockville Public Library. Come ask your questions there, or email me offline ahead of time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Practically speaking, with regard to burden of proof, the parents are almost always the party seeking relief because in MD, unlike some other states, the schools can change the IEP from year to year over parent objections. A quick look at the MD cases shows that the vast vast majority of cases re brought by parents, who overwhelming lose under the current burden of proof. Moreover, statistics from other states who enacted this leg after Schaffer indicate schools are more likely to engage in mediation with a more open mind to resolving these issues and less inclined toward hearings.

    Burden of proof on schools is a critical step toward accountability. With schools carrying the burden, they will always have to provide some evidence of FAPE. That means a hearing officer will always have to see the IEP and receive some explanation from the school as to why it provides FAPE. Under the current system, parents who can't afford attorneys resally are harmed the most, because they don't have the legal training to put on a case and the schools can and have then moved to win without putting any, or putting very little, evidence of FAPE on.

    I'm not disagreeing with Janis's point about voting, but burden of proof is a key step toward accountability.

    Signing off.

    PS Pls disregard typos. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Meeting the burden of proof sometimes in a two prong issue-medical as well as academic needs. However, the subjectiveness of the level of proof and how much a parent needs to detail, puts a large burden on the parents. At a due process hearing, the school system submits a large volume of exhibits that are organized and put in fancy folders. Several copies of the documents are needed, one for the judge, the other parties and one for themselves. It is rare that a parent can perform at the same level or know on what grounds to question the admitting of each documents/exhibit. Parents' attorneys charge a small fortune just to represent the parents at the due process hearing and then there is even more cost if an appeal is considered. The Board of Education's outside attorneys use all of process to wear down the parents. They even delay/extend the hearings, I believe, to add to their income and push the families' economic buttons to prevent appeals. The Court should be aware that MCPS has the resources/upper hand even from the beginning and should allow individual's some leeway to fight the system. Burden of proof is one issue but there are many other deceptive practices that MCPS is using against families advocating for their special needs children.

    ReplyDelete

If your comment does not appear in 24 hours, please send your comment directly to our e-mail address:
parentscoalitionmc AT outlook.com